Armaments and Weapons

03/29/2013

WITH ITS REVOLUTIONARY MANUFACTURING PROCESS, THE KIBBUTZ-OWNED COMPANY NOT ONLY SECURES VEHICLES FOR THE U.S. MILITARY AND NOW PRIVATE CLIENTS, IT PROTECTS ITS COLLECTIVIST WAY OF LIFE, TOO.

When Specialist Thomas Wilson confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the lack of armor to protect U.S. troops against roadside bombs in Iraq in 2004, neither man could have foreseen that the solution would come from Sasa, a kibbutz in Israel’s upper Galilee that remains loyal to its collectivist foundations.

For a brief period in the summer of 2000, Israel and the Palestinians appeared on the verge of peace. And although the Camp David talks ultimately failed, the prospect of a reduced Israel Defense Forces budget swayed Plasan Sasa, the IDF’s primary armor supplier, to become export-oriented.

Sasa, kibbutz, with Plasan in the foreground (Click Image To Enlarge)

Fast-forward to 2011 and Plasan sat atop Dun & Bradstreet’s annual list of largest kibbutz enterprises with around $850 million (3.173 billion ILS) in sales, thanks to its supply of vehicle protection kits to Navistar and Oshkosh, manufacturers of the U.S. military’s MRAP and M-ATV Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

A vehicle outfitted with Plasan's armor (Click Image To Enlarge)

There is nothing inherently innovative about the manufacturing of armor, but what differentiated Plasan from its competitors was its ability to do so at a rate of about one thousand vehicles per month. It did this by providing the products as kits--what Plasan Chief Designer Nir Kahn calls “the Ikea wardrobe of flatpack vehicles”--and allowing its partners to assemble them on their own production lines.

Israeli-born Kahn, whose accent still betrays his northern England upbringing despite his return as a fresh university graduate 15 years ago, explains that Plasan’s customers care about three things: cost, weight, and the threat the armor is supposed to stop. He says the company’s advantage lies in its “proactive approach” of designing both the vehicle for the armor and the armor for the vehicle, and in the close cooperation between the designers, engineers, and testers, who all sit “quite literally under one roof.”

Lockheed Martin AVA with Plasan-made armor (Click Image To Enlarge)

Kahn says.

“We do hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of projectile testing every single day. There’s the neighbor in Toy Story who’s always taking toys and blowing them up. So in our vehicle design engineering department we make the toys and pass them over to the guys who blow them up.”

The firm’s other advantage is the effort it puts into vehicle comfort and appearance, according to Kahn. He says.

“Plasan has led the industry in designing vehicles with a more progressive look. They are still military vehicles--they can’t be flower-power Volkswagens--but they project an image of humanity and progressiveness, which helps the soldier to be sure that when he rolls into that village he’s going to find friends rather than enemies.”

Plasan sold more than 20,000 vehicle kits in the decade following 9/11, primarily to the U.S., but also to a small number of other countries including the United Kingdom. Now, given the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and its imminent departure from Afghanistan, alongside the recent sequestration of the Pentagon budget, it makes sense that Plasan has shifted its focus to the civilian market.

Kahn says.

“Perhaps because we’re a kibbutz company, we wanted our business to be based on things other than war.”

Kahn clarifies that Plasan’s job has always been to protect people rather than to profit from conflict.

Given that it had the necessary composite materials, manufacturing facilities, and the ability to conduct detailed finite element analysis, it wasn’t such a leap for Plasan to make regular vehicles lighter, too. Today, the company is among the leading tier-one suppliers of carbon fiber parts to the automotive industry, supplying parts for the hoods and roofs of the new Corvette Stingray, SRT Viper, and other vehicles through its Detroit subsidiary Plasan Carbon Composites. Using its proprietary technology, Plasan produces parts for each sports car in 17 minutes instead of the industry standard 90-120 minutes. Its next goal is to bring this technology into the mainstream.

“Cars have been made out of pressed steel for the best part of 100 years, and up until now most efforts to change that have been about material substitution. We’re trying to change the conversation, to design the vehicle from composite materials for a high volume manufacturer. A high volume manufacturer in the military industry is one thousand a month, a high volume manufacturer in the motor industry is one thousand a day. But the principles are the same.A Plasan-armored, mine-resistant ambush protected all-terrain vehicle (Click Image To Enlarge)

Like most of his colleagues, Kahn does not live in Sasa. However, he acknowledges that the kibbutz’s ownership of Plasan helps instill a general feeling that the company belongs to its employees.

Dani Ziv, Plasan CEO and a Sasa resident since his days in the IDF’s Nahal Infantry brigade, says the company’s strength lies in its combining of commonplace industry values like competition with kibbutz values like democracy that don’t exist in the industry.

Ziv says.

“Democracy creates a more open dialogue within the organizational hierarchy. Every manger’s door is open, and there is no distance between the VP and the people on the bottom floor. What differentiates Plasan from other companies in our market is that our people receive more responsibility, and if someone wants to take initiative he has more freedom to do so.”

The kibbutz ideology has made its mark on Plasan, but the company’s success has not altered Sasa’s commitment to the traditional collective model maintained by less than one-quarter of Israel’s 281 kibbutzim. If anything, says Sasa Treasurer and former Plasan employee Raul Cohen, the almost-overnight impact of the first MRAP contract in 2007 gave it the freedom to decide, rather than have the banks force it into privatization like other kibbutzim.

For a community with 220 members and a population of around 400 (residents are typically offered membership in their late 20s or early 30s) that previously subsisted off agricultural proceeds, it wasn’t easy dealing with sudden riches.It took 18 months for a formula to be devised, under which Plasan takes a certain percentage for investments, while the kibbutz spends its dividends on housing infrastructure, pensions, individual bonuses worth up to a few hundred thousand shekels (about $100,000) per member, and on the local elementary and high school.

As the primary purveyor of education to an area encompassing Druze, Circassian, and Arab villages and a number of other kibbutzim, Sasa takes its responsibilities seriously. Cohen, who arrived at the kibbutz from a poor city neighborhood as a 13-year-old in 1960, says that Sasa foots the multi-million-shekel education bill and sees the role of operating its schools as no less important than that of operating Plasan.

The Office of Naval Research Combat Tactical Vehicle (Technology Demonstrator) outfitted with armor designed and manufactured by Plasan (Click Image To Enlarge)

Cohen calls the decision to provide pensions--previously almost non-existent--a “personal and collective” promise. He says:

“Any member who grows up here today lives safe in the knowledge that there will be enough money to take care of them if we remain a collective kibbutz, and even if we don’t remain collective the pension is substantial enough to ensure the member ages respectably.”

COMMENTARY: I love the benefits that Plasan Sasa kibbutz provides its 200 members. Even if Plasan goes out of business, a guaranteed trust fund has been set aside that will be pay pension benefits to the members. GM, Chrysler, Boeing and the rest of the U.S. automotive and airline industries should learn from this.

I think that Plasan has definitely delivered on its corporate vision and mission:

Global leadership in armor, focused on the wheeled and tracked vehicles market

A growing and profitable international company

Excellence in concept, armor and survivability solutions based on cutting edge technologies

Plasan has also established the following core corporate values:

EXCELLENCE - we aim for excellence at all levels of management and performance

LEADERSHIP- we promote a “culture of leadership” at all managerial levels

12/22/2012

Over the past few years there have been tantalizing reports that scientific progress was on the cusp of creating a real life invisibility cloak. But upon a closer reading, these experimental technologies didn’t amount to much beyond reminding us just how far off we are from the fictional universe of Harry Potter.

University of California researchers announced last year that they had developed a metamaterial fully capable of hiding objects from the naked eye. The breakthrough does, though, lose much of its luster considering that they’d still have to figure out a way to scale up the technology to mask objects beyond the size of a red blood cell.

Duke University just last month announced a diamond-shaped design that bent light around an object so perfectly, it even concealed shadows. Too bad the illusion only worked when looking straight and in one direction.

HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp. created the following mock-up photos to show the public what they claim their 'invisibility fabric' (Click Image To Enlarge)

Now, a little-known Canadian defense firm called HyperStealth Corp claims to be closing in on a breakthrough technology that should soon lead to a true, in every sense of the term, invisibility cloak. And to allay skeptics, company CEO Guy Cramer told CNN in an interview that they’ve even garnered strong interest from the U.S. military after demonstrating to officials how the fabric’s light-bending properties prevent the wearer from being detected entirely.

Development of the material codenamed “Quantum Stealth” has been kept shrouded in secrecy. The project’s web site reveals very few details about how the technology actually works, except that it’s lightweight, inexpensive and reduces 95 percent of an object’s shadow. The page also includes a few mock-up photos that illustrate what the material’s remarkable camouflaging effect would look like, along with an explanation from Cramer as to why they’ve decided to at least go public with their design.

Click Image To Enlarge

According to the site, Cramer started to receive a lot of attention from the media after giving a talk at a military trade show about the company’s development of an inexpensive and lightweight “light-bending material.” He said.

“After enough press had been written on the subject, the U.S. Military Command finally asked to see the real material to verify that it worked. Those meetings took place with very limited ‘Need to Know’ access and the technology is now moving forward.”

Click Image To Enlarge

If substantiated, the implications are tremendous. Snipers would be able to position themselves covertly with very little risk of being spotted, while troops could use the cloak to elude capture or to carry out surprise raids against enemies. On a more ambitious front, the invisibility-inducing material may even someday enable aircraft and ships to take the notion of “stealth” to a whole new level.

However, Cramer says that, once available, it’s likely that only the military will have access to the Quantum Stealth’s special effects, at which point, it’ll be hard to hide the collective excitement.

COMMENTARY: Guy Cramer, President and CEO of HyperStealth, said that there have been similar inventions over the years but his is the only one with a 360-degree view.

He said he isn’t able to discuss details or do demonstrations of Quantum Stealth for security reasons, but claims several military groups in Canada and the U.S. have expressed interest.

Cramer said.

“We’ve also got a countermeasure for the device to be able to detect it. It [costs] about $100 to $200 per soldier which is about what their uniforms are costing them right now.”

Only mockup photos are currently available to the general public.

Colin Worth, a recently retired RCMP officer, said he went to Ottawa with Cramer to demonstrate Quantum Stealth in front of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Worth said.

“I don’t have a vested interest in the company or the technology, but I’ve seen it work. The stumbling block last time I talked to Guy was how does he make it big enough and how does he make it portable enough to work in a real life situation?”

Worth said that he signed a secrecy and confidentiality agreement so he isn’t able to give any details, but said “stuff just seems to disappear. It’s weird the way it works but it does work.”

Bill Jarvis, a retired Navy Seal, also said he has seen the fabric work at U.S. Military Command meetings.

Cramer said that he would consider marketing Quantum Stealth to the general public only if the military allowed him to do so.

He hasn’t been approached by any Harry Potter fans yet.

On October 19, 2012, Guy Cramer, President/CEO of Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp. announced its new cloaking technology called "Quantum Stealth." Here's a copy of that press release.

12/21/2012

Americans may be fleeing from stocks in droves, but they sure aren't shy about rotating the resulting meager liquidation proceeds into weaponry. According to Gallup, "Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period." Considering the social situation "out there", and the fact that the world is one badly phrased or translated headline away from a complete HFT-facilitated market collapse, this is hardly all that suprising.

Click Image To Enlarge

More:

The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.

Not surprisingly, republicans pack more heat than democrats. Perhaps it is best not to piss too many off...

Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) are more likely than Democrats (including Democratic leaners) to say they have a gun in their household: 55% to 40%. While sizable, this partisan gap is narrower than that seen in recent years, as Democrats' self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% this year.

Click Image To Enlarge

Women are more armed than ever. Perhaps it is best not to piss too many off...

Click Image To Enlarge

Southerners, yes shocking, are the best armed of all. Perhaps it is best not to piss too many off...

Click Image To Enlarge

Gallup's conclusion:

"A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling."

COMMENTARY: If you believe that the U.S. has too many guns and that we need tougher gun regulations, post it here. I want to hear from gun owners, especially why they have a gun, how they use their guns, and how many guns you own. I hope you will also read my blog post dated December 14, 2012 which paints a very dark pictue of the gun situation in the U.S.

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated October 26, 2011 appearing in ZeroHedge.com

12/16/2012

A new Pentagon forecast showing the total cost of owning and operating a fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters topping $1 trillion over more than 50 years has caused a case of sticker shock in Washington.

And that price tag doesn't even include the $385 billion the Defense Department will spend to purchase 2,500 of the stealthy planes through 2035.

During a Senate hearing this month, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) called the $1 trillion figure "jaw-dropping," particularly when compared with the costs of operating other aircraft.

Said Senator Cain,

"I appreciate this estimate is still early and subject to change, but we need to know that the program is going to bring that number down".

Tom Burbage, who leads the program for manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., acknowledged that the 'T' word

"causes a lot of the sensational reaction to it, because no one's ever dealt with 't's before in a program."

The long-range estimate is, by its nature, imprecise because it attempts to forecast factors including inflation and fuel costs decades into the future. And the Pentagon says it will be adjusted as the planes enter operation.

But the figure is bringing new scrutiny to what is already the Pentagon's largest-ever weapon-buying project as its budget comes under pressure. Already, Lockheed Martin has said it was looking for ways to bring down the long-term cost.

Christine Fox, head of the Pentagon's cost-assessment office, said in Senate testimony that the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18. But the new aircraft will be much more sophisticated, will be far less visible to enemy radar and will have sensors that allow a single jet to take on missions that now require several aircraft.

The Marine Corps version of the F-35 will be able to hover and land vertically. The Navy model will operate from aircraft carriers, while the Air Force version will be based on land. Developmental aircraft are flying, and the first F-35s—which cost about $113 million each—are slated to enter service later in the decade.

The Pentagon's forecast includes all the possible costs the military might incur over the lifetime of the program, including everything from housing the aircraft to installing replacement parts. Add all those together, and factor in inflation, Mr. Burbage said, and "you trip the trillion-dollar mark."

But, he said,

"The question to ask is, is that a relevant number?"

Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, who previously oversaw cost assessment at the Pentagon, said it wasn't "good analysis" to put that round dollar figure out without a point of comparison—for instance, the cost of sustaining the less-capable aircraft the new plane would replace.

Geneneeral Gardner said,

"You can scare the children with lots of things by projecting out to what it's going to cost in 2065. It's more useful to us if it's [forecast] five to 10 years."

A more near-term analysis, Gen. Gardner said, might add to a constructive debate about realistic costs and alternatives.

It is normal for sustainment costs to outstrip the basic drive-away cost of a piece of military hardware. But Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter said in a recent Senate hearing that the Joint Strike Fighter's projected sustainment bill was on top of an "unacceptably large" bill for procurement.

Still the Pentagon sees no "better alternative" to the F-35 says the general,

"Sustainment seems like years away, but now is the time to face that bill and begin to get that under control."

The Joint Strike Fighter has long been a troubled program, with cost overruns, military management shake-ups and heightened political scrutiny, but Lockheed says the aircraft is now ahead of schedule on its test flights.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Lockheed Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Stevens said the trillion-dollar figure was derived from a new Pentagon "selected acquisition report" that wasn't developed by the company, and said the company would work to find ways to bring down the aircraft's long-term production and sustainment costs.

Says the Lockheed CEO,

"As big as that number is, there are sufficiently large opportunities to reduce that number by making streamlining decisions along the way."

COMMENTARY: Just before leaving office, the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us all when he said, "Beware of the U.S. military industrial complex." I wonder what Ike would say about the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program.

I enjoy writing about and exposing U.S. military wasteful spending, and believe me, "The Greatest Miliary In The World," is the biggest spender of our tax dollars, which is contrary to what people say is being spent on entitlement programs like social security and medicare.

If you believe what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says the Department of Defense spends each year, then you are very naive. Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security, CIA and NSA fall under the Department of Defense? All the U.S. contractors stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are also included in the Department of Defense budget.

THE FACT IS: Nobody really knows the actual amount being spent by our U.S. military because much of the spending is highly classified and the government simply doesn't want us to know. It's for reasons of national security, and we don't want the other side to know what we are up to.

THE F-22 RAPTOR PROGRAM COMES TO AN END

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth generation super-maneurable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. The Raptor, originally designated the Y-22, first entered service on December 15, 2005, and was designed for the U.S. Air Force primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.

The high cost of the Raptor, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the ongoing development of the supposedly cheaper and more versatile F-35 Lightning resulted in calls by the U.S. Defense Department to end F-22 production on April 2009. A total of 168 Raptors were built out of 187 budgeted with a total program cost of $65 billion. Total unit costs per plane was $150 million.

On 9 July 2009, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of the F-22 production line. He believed, most importantly, that Fifth-generation fighters need to be proliferated to all three services, a need that could only be met by shifting more resources to producing the 10-years more advanced, multi-service and multirole F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet.

THE F-35 LIGHTNING JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

The F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet. previously designated the X-35, will be produced by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp, U.S. Navy and our European military partners The U.K., Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada. The number of F-35's to be produced are as follows:

United States:

US Air Force: 1,763

US Navy/US Marine Corp: 680

Total: 2,443

European Military Partners:

United Kingdom - Royal Air Force and Royal Navy: 138

Italy: 131

Netherlands: 85

Turkey: 100

Australia: 100

Norway: 48

Denmark: 30

Canada: 65

U.S. also ordered 14 F-35's for flgiht tests.

The 2,443 F-35's for the U.S. military are scheduled for production between now and the year 2035 at a total cost of $385 billion. This averages $158 million per plane (includwa spare parts) before recurring costs like maintenance, housing and armaments. Individual unit costs are as follows:

F-35A: $122 million (average cost, 2011)

F-35B: $150 million (average cost, 2011)

F-35C: $139.5 millin (average cost, 2011)

The F-35 Lightning II comes in three variants designed to replace aircraft from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Navy:

There are subtle specification differences between each variant as listed below:

Below is the U.S. Marine AV-8B Harrier jet landing on the deck of the U.S. Navy Amphibius Assault Ship USS Bataan (LHD-5).

The F-35B (STOVL) will replace all four previous versions of the V/STOL Harrier family.

According to the Pentagon, the estimated average recurring fly away costs per plane using the U.S. Air Force F-35A CTOL as the benchmark is $65 million per year per plane. NOTE: U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corp versions of the F-35 would have a different estimted average recurring fly away costs because of differences in design.

The Pentagon produced the following production schedule for the 2,443 F-35's being ordered based on Lockheed's annual production capacity. This includes 415 F-35's that will be produced between now and the end of FY 2016, and another 2,028 additional F-35's that will be produced between FY 2016 and FY 2035.

If you do the math, the estimated recurring fly away costs for the 415 F-35's that have already been produced and will be produced between FY 2011 and FY2016 are as follows:

Test Flight Craft - 14: $910 million

Produced FY Prior to 2011 - 58: $26.390 billion

Produced FY 2011 - 32: $12.480 billion

Produced FY 2012 - 32: $10.400 billion

Produced FY 2013 - 42: $10.920 billion

Produced FY 2014 - 62: $12.090 billion

Produced FY 2015 - 81: $10.530 billion

Produced FY 2016 - 108: $7.020 billion

The above totals for the above 415 F-35's totals approximately $84 billion between now and the end of 2016. Then you add this to the recurring costs for the other 2,028 F-35's that will be produced after FY 2016, and that's how the Pentagon derived its $1 trillion figure. In any event, $65 million for maintenance, housing and armaments for the F-35 is damn expensive to say the least.

COMPARISON F-22A VERSUS F-35A

Thanks to nice folks of the Air Force Association, I was able to obtain a comparison of the F-22A versus F-35A. Comparisons were based on different metrics:

What's not to like about the F-22A. The F-22A was superior over the F-35A in just about every metric except for Unrefuled Combat Radius. The cost comparisons are a bit tricky because they do not include maintenance, housing and armament costs. The F-22A unit cost was also based on a much smaller quantity--187 versus 1763.

The U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy have special needs and requirements because they require V/STOL and carrier-based landing capability respectively. Therefore, the costs for the F-35B and F-35C will probably be higher than the F-35A which is land-based.

The biggest criticism that I have with the F-35 Lightning II is the decision to go with a mulitrole underpowered aircraft that would be designed for three branches of the military. We seem to have put all our eggs in one basket. The F-22A has far better performance characteristics and would've given us greater ability to go up against both Russian and Chinese Fifth Generation Fighter jets.

If the price of the F-35 Lightning II was supposed to be chaper, it sure as hell has not turned out that way. I think we need to totally re-evaluate the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Attack jet. We have no choice. In an era of huge federal budget deficits, we must find ways of reducing costs in every department, and this includes the defense budget, a department with costs that will approach $1 trillion by 2016.

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET

To make my case for reductions in the defense budget, let's look at the U.S. Department of Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2010, 2011 and 2012 shall we.

U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010

U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010 - By Branch and Department

U.S. Defense Department of Defense - FY 2012 (DOD and other departments)

U.S. Department of Defense Annual Budget for the FY1962 Through FY 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation

U.S. Department of Defense Per Capital Spending 1962 Through 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation

If you look at the U.S. Department of Defense for programs spending in excess of $1.5 billion, the F-35 is prominently at the top of the list. I think we can assume that the F-35 program will occupy the No 1 spot for a decade and beyond. In short, the F-35 program will be the single most expensive project U.S. Department of Defense Budget.

We have to seriously ask ourselves whether it's time for the U.S. government to seriously consider reducing our military budget. It has gotten completely out of control. Per capita spending on military spending has risen from $2,500 per person in 1962 to nearly $4,000 per person in FY 2010. By FY 2014 per capital spending will be $4,100 per person.

CONCLUSION

I believe we would be better served by replacing the U.S. Air Force F-35A with the F-22A because it is just plain and simple the superior plane in just about every performance metric. It can carry larger payloads, has greater thrust, speed and maneuverability, has a superior flight envelope, and can control twice the battle space of the F-35A. I don't know who made the decision to go with the F-35A, but in my opinion this was a huge mistake.

I like the F-35 Lightning II's multiservice role, and what it can do overall, but performance-wise the F-22 is far superior. Unfortunately, the F-22 is not designed for vertical takeoff and carrier operations. I am very reluctant to go with the F-35B STOLV and F-35C CV, because the F-35 Lightning II's performance puts our Marine and Navy pilots at a disadvantage in combat conditions. If we are going to go into battle, I want my Marines and Navy pilots behind the best plane--period. They should not be second best to anybody.

My other complaint is the F-35 Lightning II's total production costs per aircraft have skyrocketed to $158 million per plane, and are projected to rise even higher. Just what the hell is going on here?Lockheed Martin has a lot of explaining to do. The company needs to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs of production, parts, housing and armaments. We need to find a way to make the plane much more cost-effective, even if it means that Lockheed Martin has to eat some of those flyaway costs.

12/16/12 - UPDATE:

For three years (FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY2012), the Pentagon has been postponing orders for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Plans to produce 425 of the F-35's have been put on hold. But Lockheed, the builder of the F-35 has reasons to be optimistic. According to government officials, the Pentagon is close to approving a deal to produce 29 F-35's during fiscal year 2013. The F-35's history is full of research and development setbacks, rising costs and mounting criticism of the troubled F-35. It is now estimated that if the Pentagon builds 2400+ F-35's, the total cost will hit $395 billion. That's a 70% increase in costs since 2001. Flight tests have uncovered a number of flaws with the F-35. Lockheed has agreed to underwrite half the cost of fixing those flaws. And, the Air Force general who supervises the F-35 program calls the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed,

"The worst I've ever seen."

Lockheed launched an online campaign on its website to urge F-35 supporters to sign a petition to prevent the F-35 program from being scrapped. The F-35 has undergone numerous test flights since 2006, but don't expect the F-35 to appear over the skys of Afghanistan anytime soon.

08/17/2012

In the wake of the recent mass shootings, reasonable people have been asking whether their state is doing everything it can to prevent people with severe mental illness from getting guns.

Unfortunately, according to latest data from the FBI, the answer right now is clearly: “No.”

When someone tries to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, they have to undergo abackground check.

However, most states have failed to submit millions of mental health records into the national do-not-sell gun database – making these gun checks alarmingly incomplete.

Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen.

And what’s worse, leaders at the state and national levels have not told us how theyplan on closing these fatal gaps.

Find out the risk level in your state – and then share the following map with friends and family so they can take action too.

Click Image To View an Interactive Map, then click on your State

COMMENTARY: If you click on the dark maroon colored states, you will find that some of them do little or nothing to screen gun applications for individuals with mental illnesses. Many of the individuals involved in mass killings by firearms had histories of mental illness. This includes the infamous Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean student who killed 34 students and teachers and wounded countless more at Virginia Tech and James Holmes, the University of Colorado medical school dropout who shot and killed numerous moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.

If you are concerned as I am about how easy it is to obtain a gun if you have a mental illness, violent history or previous felony conviction, then fill out the short questionnaire next to your state. This will bring this matter to the attention of POTUS Barack Obama, ex-governor Willard Romney and your own State governor. Pass the link of the map to your friends who feel the same way.

NOTE: I am NOT against gun ownership, or legislation to prevent you from owning a gun, but I am for tougher gun registration legislation and preventing the sale of guns to individuals with violent pasts, mental illnesses and felony convictions. The right to bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, many states (marooned-colored states) have very liberal gun ownership laws. Some states like Kentucky, don't even require gun ownership registration at all.

Courtesy of an infographic titled "Demand A Plan To End Gun Violence" prepared by DemandAPlan.org

03/15/2012

A weapon that used to be the size of a passenger jet now fits on the back of a flatbed truck. (Shark mounting apparatus sold separately.)

DARPA is unveiling a portable laser weapons system, HELLADS, which seems like something out of a sci-fi movie. HELLADS stands for High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System. The new laser application, created by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems with a custom power system from Saft Batteries, will help change the way the American military fights future wars. Current military laser systems are bulky contraptions which are mainly the size of a passenger jet, while the proposed DARPA weapon can fit on the back of a flatbed truck. The 150-kilowatt, solid state laser weapon is strong enough to take down drones or other aerial targets; a prototype is expected to be available by the end of 2012.

Since laser beams work at the speed of light, it's effectively impossible for aerial targets to dodge them. The use of laser beams against land targets is complicated by line-of-sight issues, but the miniaturization of laser technology makes them perfect for use against aerial and naval targets. The demonstration laser for DARPA will be the first 150-kilowatt laser weapon of its kind. DARPA plans to use the completed prototypes against targets at White Sands Missile Range in early 2013--this will include ground testing against rockets, mortars, and surface-to-air missiles.

Although video footage of HELLADS is not available yet, this clip of a previously developed American-Israeli laser system (which will be discussed later) from Northrop Grumman gives a good idea of how the system will work.

The big advance with these weapons is in the strength of the lasers and in their portability. Saft's Annie Sennet-Cassity told Fast Company that while previous military laser prototypes were stronger, they were also about the size of a passenger jet. This creates obvious difficulties in battlefield or aerial use. A 150-kilowatt laser beam is powerful enough to destroy aircraft. Previous military laser weapons primarily relied on blinding pilots with laser beams, rather than destroying the aircraft itself. For the United States Air Force, the ultimate goal is to equip bombers and UAVs with HELLADS weaponry.

However, the United States is not the only nation developing laser weapons. The Israeli government and American defense contractors have quietly been working for years on the Nautilus laser system, which in the words of Wired's Danger Room blog, gave the country a “ray gun defense.” Russia has been working on aerial military lasers since at least 2010, and India has also been developing a laser weapon system of its own.

While the idea of military lasers, death rays, and ray guns encourage all sorts of futurist fantasies, there will be major limitations to these weapons. Despite the fact that DARPA's laser can destroy airplanes, the strength of the laser beam is greatly weakened by clouds, haze, and dust clouds—something that can limit on-the-ground use in warzones.

COMMENTARY: HELLADS reminds one of the laser blasters you see in 'Star Wars' sci-fi films. With the ability to be able to integrate HELLADS into combat vehicles, aircraft and ships, this could be a game changer in combat warfare. However, the U.S. is not the only country working this this type of technology. You can bet that the Chinese are working on something similar.

12/28/2011

BEIJING—China has begun operating a homegrown satellite navigation service that is designed to provide an alternative to the U.S. Global Positioning System and, according to defense experts, could help the Chinese military to identify, track and strike U.S. ships in the region in the event of armed conflict.

The Beidou Navigation Satellite System

The Beidou Navigation Satellite System started providing initial positioning, navigation and timing services to China and its "surrounding areas" on Tuesday, Ran Chengqi, a spokesman for the system, told a news conference.

In July 2011, China launched its 9th Beidou Navigation Satellite System GPS satellite from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in China's Sichuan Province.

He said China had so far launched 10 satellites for the Beidou system, including one this month, and planned to put six more in orbit in 2012 to enhance the system's accuracy and expand its service to cover most of the Asia Pacific region.

The system isn't as believed to be as accurate as the U.S. GPS. Nonetheless, China has made significant advances in the field thanks to a spate of satellite launches since 2009, according to a paper by Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin published in the Journal of Strategic Studies in October.

They wrote.

"Although China still has a long way to go before it has continuous real-time tactical coverage, even of a regional maritime environment, it now has frequent and dependable coverage of stationary targets and at least a basic ability to identify, track and target vessels at sea.

Based purely on capabilities, with a space-based reconnaissance system as the backbone, China is clearly acquiring greater ability not only to defend against intruding aircraft carriers but to project force as well."

China's Ministry of Defense didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Beidou—which means Big Dipper in Mandarin—is run by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp., one of the main state-owned contractors for the Chinese space program, which is largely controlled by the Chinese military.

Visitors look at a model of the Beidou navigation system in Shanghai in May.

China began building Beidou in 2000 with the goal of creating its own global system—called Compass—with 35 satellites, by 2020. The only other operational global system apart from GPS is Russia's Glonass, although the European Union's Galileo system is due to be completed by 2020.

Beidou, like GPS, will provide free civilian services that can be used in conjunction with commercially developed applications for use by drivers in private cars, monitor commercial trucks and ships and assist in natural disasters. It has the added advantage of supporting SMS messages, according to Mr. Ran.

He didn't mention potential military applications at the news conference, a transcript of which was provided by the information office of China's State Council, or Cabinet.

But the system will also give the Chinese military an alternative to GPS, which was developed by the Pentagon and is still controlled by the U.S. government. The U.S. could, in theory, disable or deny access to the system by others in the event of a conflict, although it says it never has done so in the past.

Military Use of Beidou GPS Satellites

Military experts see Beidou as part of China's efforts over the last 15 years to develop capabilities designed to deny or hinder U.S. naval access to waters around its shores in case Washington tries to intervene in a conflict—over Taiwan, for example, which Beijing sees as a rebel province.

Beidou could be used in conjunction with other satellites, drones and related technology to help track U.S. ships, position its own submarines and other vessels, and guide antiship ballistic missiles towards their targets, according to military experts.

It also gives China a significant tactical advantage over neighbors with whom it has territorial disputes, including India, which is developing its own regional satellite navigation system but doesn't expect to complete it for several years.

China still lags behind the U.S in terms of how long, and how accurately, it can monitor any part of the globe from space: GPS, which was launched for civilian use in 1995, now consists of 30 satellites and can be accurate to within less than 10 meters, or 33 feet, although the U.S. military has access to more precise readings.

Mr. Ran said Beidou was accurate to within 25 meters and would reduce that to 10 meters by the end of next year. The Chinese military may also have access to more accurate data, but because China has fewer satellites, it cannot monitor the same spot for as long as the U.S.

China's plans to develop a satellite positioning system are thought to date back to 1983 when Ronald Reagan announced plans to build space-based missile-defense systems in what became known as his "Star Wars" speech.

Beijing's plans gained momentum after its military leaders noted the importance of GPS for U.S. forces during the first Gulf War in 1991. Five years later, Chinese military commanders were frustrated when they couldn't locate two carrier groups that the U.S. deployed near Taiwan after China fired missiles into the sea off the island's coast in a failed attempt to influence the outcome of an election there, according to several defense analysts.

China launched the first two satellites of an experimental system called Beidou-1 in 2000 and made it available to civilians in 2004, but the service wasn't popular as its associated devices used to access the system—called terminals—were relatively large and much more expensive than GPS ones.

The system has been used, however, to coordinate the movement of Chinese troops, to help border guards patrol in remote areas, and to track fishing vessels in the South China Sea, according to Chinese state media.

In 2007, China launched the first satellite of its second-generation system, called Beidou-2, which is thought to use cheaper terminals and, unlike its predecessor, doesn't require a ground station.

Mr. Ran said Beidou was now being used by more than 100,000 clients in China and had been used to help track government vehicles in the southern province of Guangdong, and to assist disaster-relief work after an earthquake in the western province of Sichuan in 2008.

He said it was compatible with the world's other major global satellite navigation systems, and encouraged Chinese and foreign enterprises to help develop terminals that could use the Chinese network.

A preliminary version of the system's Interface Control Document, which allows foreign and Chinese entities access to its basic technical data, was made available on the system's website, beidou.gov.cn, from Tuesday, he said.

China Warns U.S. Over Naval Survellance Operations in South China Sea

The South China Sea is another potential flashpoint as tensions have been rising this year between China and neighboring countries that also claim territorial waters there. Beijing has repeatedly accused the U.S. of meddling in the issue and has warned it to cease surveillance operations in the area.

China has voiced its strongest warning in weeks to the United States on the South China Sea issue. It's urged the US to stay away from the issue, which is the spotlight of rising tensions between China and Southeastern countries in recent weeks.

It comes after the United States and Japan agreed to deal with the issue together with Southeastern nations in their just-concluded cabinet-level talks, and escalating tensions over the disputed waters.

Celebrating their 50 years of alliance, the United States and Japan are seeking greater influence in regional security. A joint statement was released after the Security meeting in Washington, setting new common strategic objectives with wider range.

Hillary Cliton, US Secretary of State, said,

"Our agenda today embodied in the documents that we have just released reflects the breadth and depth of our alliance. We are cooperating more closely on a wider range of issues and challenges than ever before."

Apparently alluding to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the statement urged the maintenance of maritime safety and security based on freedom of navigation.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Japanese Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto agreed to deal with the matter together with Southeast Asian nations, with Clinton saying China's naval activities are creating tension in the region, reported by Japanese media.

For China, it's an arm extended too far. The country voiced its most direct warning to Washington on Wednesday.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai urged the United States to leave the South China Sea dispute to the claimant states. And US involvement may make the situation worse. He said China is greatly concerned by frequent provocations by other parties in the waters.

Tensions in the South China Sea have risen in recent months after Vietnam held a live military drill in the waters. Vietnam and the Philippines took unilateral actions to occupy parts of the islands in recent decades, which have belonged to China's territory since ancient times.

China has long called for bilateral ways to resolve the disputes through dialogue. It believes foreign intervention may only complicate the already tense issue.

Cui Tiankai, Chinese Vice FM, said,

"US should leave the South China Sea dispute to the claimant states. US involvement may make the situation worse. China was greatly concerned by frequent provocations by other parties in the waters."

China Confirms "Carrier-Killer" Missile

This year, China confirmed for the first time that it was developing an antiship ballistic missile that the Pentagon says may already be basically operational and eventually capable of hitting a moving aircraft carrier up to 1,700 miles, or 2,700 kilometers, from China's shores.

The anti access version of the DF-21(D) Anti Shipping Ballistic Missile ASBM is designed to counter the power projection capabilities of the American Navy's carrier battle group. The examination of the steps the Chinese military would follow to use this weapon are presented in this two part video

Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY: Why would China sacrafice its new-found wealth, rising standard of living, international prestige, and lose its best and biggest customer--the U.S.A. It doesn't make sense to me that they should be taking us on, making these incredible threats. The South China Sea is international waters. They just can't claim it's theres and ban us or any other nation from sailing ships through it.

Make no doubt about it that the U.S. is working on or has technologies to shoot down the DF-21 anti-carrier missle. We will know when they launch those missle, and retaliate accordingly. And, even if they succeed in sinking a U.S. super-carrier, we have nuclear ballistic missle submarines off China's coast that would immediately launch their multiple warhead Trident missles to destroy their military bases and cities, killing perhaps most of the Chinese people. We also have B-2 stealth bombers and the F117 stealth fighters to disable their command and control systems.

President Obama has done the right thing by stationing two nuclear carriers off of China's coast to protect Taiwan and our other interests in the area. I have also spoken with three Chinese tech bloggers, and they are scared shitless that their country is taking such an aggressive stance. Let's just hope that the Chinese don't do something stupid.

I did look into the Beidou Navational Satellite System and you can read all about it HERE.

05/17/2011

The U.S. Navy is using robotic helicopters as part of its surveillance missions. The MQ-8B Fire Scout could be how the U.S. Navy conducts surveillance missions in the future. Acording to the Wall Street Journal's Nathan Hodge, the Fire Scout has already been deployed for missions over the Middle East, including Afghanistan. In 2010, the Fire Scout was used in a drug bust in the Eastern Pacific.

Accordig to the Navy, the Fire Scout can stay in the air much longer than manned helicopters and can fly at a range of up to 150 miles from its home base. The Fire Sout flew 18 hours in a single day. Fire Scout's are remotely controlled by operaters onboard U.S. Navy ships. The FS is built by Northrop Grumman. U.S. Navy has plans to buy 168 of these puppies.

COMMENTARY: The Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout is an unmanned autonomous helicopter developed for use by the United States armed forces to provide reconnaissance, situational awareness, and precision targeting support. The initial RQ-8A version was based on the Schweizer 330, while the enhanced MQ-8B is derived from the Schweizer 333.

Originally the U.S. Navy decided the Fire Scout didn't meet their operational and mission needs, and cut funding for production in December 2001. However, the development program continued, and Northrop Grumman pitched a range of improved configurations to anyone who was interested. As it turned out, the U.S. Army was very interested, awarding a contract for seven improved "RQ-8B" evaluation machines in late 2003. In 2006, it was redesignated "MQ-8B".

The MQ-8B features four-blade main rotor, in contrast to the larger-diameter three-blade rotor of the RQ-8A, to reduce noise and improve lift capacity and performance. The four-blade rotor had already been evaluated on Fire Scout prototypes. They boost gross takeoff weight by 500 pounds to 3,150 pounds (by 225 kg to 1,430 kg), with payloads of up to 700 pounds (320 kg) for short-range missions.

The MQ-8B Fire Scout maybe small, but let there be no doubt that this robotic helicopter is a super-sophisticated killing machine. This is what's in store for Al Qaeda terrorists, Taliban fighters and Islamic Jihadists. The MQ-8B is fitted with stub wings which serve both an aerodynamic purpose as well as an armament carriage location. MQ-8B armaments include:

Production of the flight test airframes was initiated in April 2006 at the Northrop Grumman Unmanned Systems production plant in Moss Point, Mississippi. The Navy approved low-rate initial production. First flight of the MQ-8B took place on December 18, 2006 at NAS Patuxent River.

The Army interest revived Navy interest in the program, with the Navy ordering eight Sea Scout MQ-8B derivatives for evaluation. In January 2010, the Army terminated its involvement with the Fire Scout contending that the Shadow UAV could meet the Army's needs.

The MQ-8B complements the manned aviation detachments onboard Air Capable ships and is deployed along with either an SH-60B HSL/HSM detachment or a SH-60S HSC detachment. With the planned addition of RADAR, AIS, and weapons, the MQ-8B will provide many of the capabilities currently provided by the SH-60B. It will give the ship and embarked air detachment greater flexibility in meeting mission demands, and will free manned aircraft for those missions.

Production aircraft will eventually be deployed on the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ships, which I profiled on September 13, 2010. In February 2008, the U.S. Navy announced that they would integrate the MQ-8B Fire Scout VTUAV onto another air-capable ship before it reaches the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

In September 2009, the U.S. Navy announced the first deployment of the MQ-8B Fire Scout on board the guided-missile frigate USS McInerney, an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate, for counter-narcotics trafficking deployment in 2009.

On 3 April 2010, an MQ-8 from McInerney detected a "go-fast" open speedboat and a support vessel engaged in smuggling cocaine in the Eastern Pacific, allowing the ship to confiscate 60 kg of cocaine and detain a number of suspects.

SPECIFICATIONS:

The MQ-8B Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land on any aviation-capable warship and at prepared and unprepared landing zones in proximity to the soldier in contact.

Autonomous operations from all air-capable ships

8 hours continuous system on station coverage

Ceiling and airspeed: 20,000 ft, 125 + kts

5 hours on station time (single vehicle) at 110 nm

Target location error < 12 m CEP

Interoperability through Tactical Control System (TCS) software and STANAG 4586 Compliance Payload Features

The 75-lb. electro-optical infrared/multi-spectral imaging payload can detect surface-emplaced and recently buried patterned mines, as well as randomly scattered mines. The payload also can be expanded to detect obstacles, combat vehicles, camouflaged objects and other combat targets.

Fully interoperable between land and sea-based Tactical Control Systems

Legacy of High Reliability:

Based on a Schweizer Aircraft commercial airframe with over 20 million flight hours, the Fire Scout vehicle incorporates reliable turbine power (160 million flight hours) using standard NATO heavy fuel. Leveraging from this FAA certified aircraft with commonality of over 50 percent of the mechanical parts, the servicing and logistical processes are well known, proven and documented. This "low risk" approach for the airframe allows effective maturation of the entire system within a short development schedule.

Each MQ-8B Fire Scout costs $16.2 million. The U.S. Navy's contract calls for the production of 168 MQ-8B's at a total cost of $2.8 billion. MQ-8B's are scheduled for deployment on board the U.S. Navy's Littoral Ships LCS Freedom and Independence.